4 ms·

Awful for what? When intuitively visualising the number of pixels in a terrabyte I think it's quite good.

• Dylan16807 8y ago
  When you're trying to leverage your intuitive understanding of photos, using such a low DPI will screw up that intuition and damage the accuracy. 1mm black and white is basically a QR code. I prefer to visualize things at a reasonable density. Using boring software and a boring printer, adding in redundancy and still using very visible dots[1], you can fit over 7000 bits per square cm instead of 100. That old 2MB card turns out to only be worth 4 sheets of paper. 1TB remains enormous, but going from 3 square miles down to .1 square kilometers helps to bring things closer to understandable. With this new density it's 25 acres or 17 football fields. Considering the flash layers is also useful to my intuition. That old CF card is four pieces of paper next to each other. This new card is a box 32 meters / 105 feet on each side, filled edge to edge with densely printed dots on paper stacked 96 sheets deep. I can actually visualize that room / yard. I can visualize the dots on a sheet of paper. I cannot visualize a square mile at human scale. [1] http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/extremetech-page-paperback-gif.gif http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/extrem...
  • afandian 8y ago
    I was thinking purely about the physical size of a single bit. I feel like I can personally interact with a 1mm object. Anything smaller gets in the way of the physical intuition. I wasn't actually thinking about photos at all. Anyway, thanks for your perspective! I think the conclusion is the same -- we've come a long way from the internal combution engine.